Currently Canon 5D Mark II thinking about moving to Nikon

ShutterPal wrote: All good advise here, thank you all.  Red ninja, on a 1 to 10 scale where would you rate that a7?  I've been reading some good reviews on that camera.  Would you consider that as a stand alone camera?  

How important is AF to you?

When I need it, it's handy to have.   Why is that?  

ShutterPal wrote: When I need it, it's handy to have.   Why is that?  

AF isn't as fast on the a7r, and a7r.

Well I will come to this from a different tact. If you like the layout of the controls more with the Nikon then get one. My reasoning is that it means you will use it more, and enjoy it. That for me was a big part of why I chose the Nikon over the Canon. Also there is the consideration that with the Nikon you can use their older lenses if they are Ai or newer. This means manual focusing with some lenses, but with landscapes, macro, and still work you most likely are anyhow. Wildlife you usually use AF which works very well. Since you bought a used camera it sounds as if you are not really heavily invested yet in one system, so if you are going to change up, closer to your beginning is better than later when you have tons of glass.
With that said both manufacturers make a great camera, and you can do well with either system. That is if you put in the right effort. So you have to decide which you really like playing with the best, and then go for it, and do not look back.

Scotty wrote:

ShutterPal wrote: When I need it, it's handy to have.   Why is that?  

AF isn't as fast on the a7r, and a7r.

Seriously? 

ShutterPal wrote: All good advise here, thank you all.  Red ninja, on a 1 to 10 scale where would you rate that a7?  I've been reading some good reviews on that camera.  Would you consider that as a stand alone camera?  

4X+7X+19=3 x 12 - 4+(5 x 16) - 5 
X=? 

The Sony is a good camera.  Not too many lenses currently though, but it's a nice backup cam to my 1Dx and the a7r would make a very nice landscape/portrait cam.  the 55 1.8 Zeiss seems to be an amazing lens too (which I will be buying).  

It could be a stand alone camera no problem.  EXCEPT if you wanted to do sports or events with it.  You could perhaps get away with it for those things, but I prefer a camera with more reliable AF for those things.

Scotty wrote:

KCook wrote: As touchy feelie seems to be important to the OP, there are also significant differences in the lenses.  But you have to judge that on a lens by lens basis, not a broad "BrandX is always better" brush.

Kelly Cook

Isn't that that the truth!

Depends.  I mean they both have good and bad with the lenses, but each brand covers all the bases when it comes to lenses.  24-70 2.8 both have good lenses, 70-200 2.8 IS/VR both have good lenses.  Sure Nikon have the 14-24 (which is an amazing lens) so if you want a super wide zoom then Nikon is great.  24 1.4 is good on both brands.  35 1.4 (just get Sigma, no worries).  50mm  meh whatever. 85... well here's the kicker, Nikon have a much better budget 85mm, but Canon have the 85 1.2.  So... yeh... macro lenses.  Canon are techically better, but Nikon isn't that bad either.  TS lenses Canon > Nikon.  Long lenses, both are good.

Unless you want want budget 1.8 primes (Nikon is slightly better than Canon there) or a 14-24.  Then Canon isn't worse than Nikon.  Nikon isn't worse than Canon either.  Their TS lenses are fine, just not as good as Canon.  ALso the Canon macro lens (100 L) is slightly better than the Nikon, but it's not like the difference will kill you).

Joves wrote: Well I will come to this from a different tact. If you like the layout of the controls more with the Nikon then get one. My reasoning is that it means you will use it more, and enjoy it. That for me was a big part of why I chose the Nikon over the Canon. Also there is the consideration that with the Nikon you can use their older lenses if they are Ai or newer. This means manual focusing with some lenses, but with landscapes, macro, and still work you most likely are anyhow. Wildlife you usually use AF which works very well. Since you bought a used camera it sounds as if you are not really heavily invested yet in one system, so if you are going to change up, closer to your beginning is better than later when you have tons of glass.
With that said both manufacturers make a great camera, and you can do well with either system. That is if you put in the right effort. So you have to decide which you really like playing with the best, and then go for it, and do not look back.

I've used both extensively.  Neither is better than the other, it's just what you get used to (or prefer).  I really don't have a preference.  

ShutterPal wrote:

Scotty wrote:

ShutterPal wrote: When I need it, it's handy to have.   Why is that?  

AF isn't as fast on the a7r, and a7r.

Seriously? 

Yeh.  The a7 has a hybrid contrast detect / phase detect AF system and the a7r only has (like a point and shoot) contrast detect AF system.  Also (according to digital rev) the a7r tends to like to focus on objects in the background more.   

I shoot MF most of the time on the a7 so I don't care.  I also have face detection turned on for when I shoot AF (the face detection on the a7 is really nice when you set it up right).

  What Scotty and Ninja said on the a7.  This camera kicks tail end in so many ways, however if I were to say one area of the camera that could use some improvement, it would be the AF speed.  Seriously, it's a great camera.   Nikon and Canon need to wake up, other wise Sony will be taking their market share as people get their hands on this camera. 

Alex wrote:   What Scotty and Ninja said on the a7.  This camera kicks tail end in so many ways, however if I were to say one area of the camera that could use some improvement, it would be the AF speed.  Seriously, it's a great camera.   Nikon and Canon need to wake up, other wise Sony will be taking their market share as people get their hands on this camera. 

It's the camera that made me sit up and take notice of Sony.  I considered a NEX before, but didn't like the form factor.  The A7 is almost perfect AND it's FF AND it's pretty affordable.  

I hope they introduce something to make manual focus slightly easier.  Like a zoomed in part in the centre of the viewfinder (optional) that you can use to check focus (instead of having to zoom all the way in).  Or some sort of picture in picture thing that does the same job.  Other than that peaking does OK and I have mine setup so I can press a button to zoom in for critical focus if I want.

Alex wrote:   What Scotty and Ninja said on the a7.  This camera kicks tail end in so many ways, however if I were to say one area of the camera that could use some improvement, it would be the AF speed.  Seriously, it's a great camera.   Nikon and Canon need to wake up, other wise Sony will be taking their market share as people get their hands on this camera. 

Plus there are adapters to use nikon and can lenses with AF on the body.  Last time I checked they were all on back order.  

What Stealthy says above about lenses I find completely accurate except I believe the nikon 24 1.4 is better than the canon (simply a newer design). 

Alex wrote:   What Scotty and Ninja said on the a7.  This camera kicks tail end in so many ways, however if I were to say one area of the camera that could use some improvement, it would be the AF speed.  Seriously, it's a great camera.   Nikon and Canon need to wake up, other wise Sony will be taking their market share as people get their hands on this camera. 

Apparently we did not see the news article today about Sony's dismal performance and problems in the consumer electronics area.  There's talk of them shedding VAIO, possibly televisions, and an inability to come up with anything worthwhile. They're starting to bleed money, too.

They've introduced a nice mirrorless camera into a relatively small market. I don't think Canon and Nikon have much to worry about.

garyrhook wrote:

Alex wrote:   What Scotty and Ninja said on the a7.  This camera kicks tail end in so many ways, however if I were to say one area of the camera that could use some improvement, it would be the AF speed.  Seriously, it's a great camera.   Nikon and Canon need to wake up, other wise Sony will be taking their market share as people get their hands on this camera. 

Apparently we did not see the news article today about Sony's dismal performance and problems in the consumer electronics area.  There's talk of them shedding VAIO, possibly televisions, and an inability to come up with anything worthwhile. They're starting to bleed money, too.

They've introduced a nice mirrorless camera into a relatively small market. I don't think Canon and Nikon have much to worry about.

Playstation brand is doing very well.  A7 series is selling like mad, and their tv sales are picking up.  Vaio has been dead in the water for awhile so I could see that.

Scotty wrote:

Alex wrote:   What Scotty and Ninja said on the a7.  This camera kicks tail end in so many ways, however if I were to say one area of the camera that could use some improvement, it would be the AF speed.  Seriously, it's a great camera.   Nikon and Canon need to wake up, other wise Sony will be taking their market share as people get their hands on this camera. 

Plus there are adapters to use nikon and can lenses with AF on the body.  Last time I checked they were all on back order.  

What Stealthy says above about lenses I find completely accurate except I believe the nikon 24 1.4 is better than the canon (simply a newer design). 

Metabones have an adapter that lets CANON lenses AF but you can't do it with NIKON......  I think.